About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:31:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel v26

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 8, San Francisco 4, Mta 2, The City 2, Cal 2, Campos 1, Mudo 1, Ada 1, City 1, Geneva 1, Priority 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    November 1, 2013
    7:00 - 7:31am PDT  

7:00am
system. so the investment plan or the spending plan identified including streets and signals and rebuilding the building fleet. safe and complete streets and then providing a -- assistance to our partners. the plan is now proposing to raise the level to a good condition, to replace almost half of the city's traffic and ped signals within 15 years and this will improve the transit as well as pedestrian safety and reliability. and to modernize the signals to reduce
7:01am
congestion. the vehicle fleet rehabilitation, again, as i'm sure you know from personal experience the break downs that occur within the vehicle fleet because of the vehicles are not being overhauled and replaced in a timely way and then converting the bus to 60 passengers and improving the maintenance sufficienty my rebuilding our maintenance facilities. rapid network enhancement includes better market street, the implementation of the transit effectiveness project and the gary network improvement. i did want to note that the plan as it stands now would fund the betterer market street, but has
7:02am
not funded the gary rapid transit. this is an area where we're continuing to look at the data, look at the need, look at the available funding and working with the transportation authority as well. and your comments and feedback in the priorization of the rapid transit is helpful. these are the areas where many the resident of the city are having very, very difficult experience with the current system and to -- through the lanes, through the bus stops, the signaling, increasing the number of buses and so forth to be able to speed up the routes. reliability improvements, and
7:03am
new investments on routes that will improve the customer experience and new pedestrian facilities. these are examples of buckets of projects that are under advisement at this point. bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements, again, to reduce the severe injuries and fatalities, building additional bicycle facilities and current and encouraging the mode shift. moving out of the car to the bus, moving from the bus to the bike, moving from the bike to the pedestrian. accessibility, meeting guidelines. with every project we have to meet ada. we don't have funding and this will provide the funding to meet the requirements for the major projects that are underway and where ever
7:04am
possible to exceed them. and upgrading holding facilities particularly in the better market street boarding facility is an example. safe and complete streets is following the paving as you see in the chavez improvements that you see at this point. we have the funds for the repaving or sometimes there's sewer work and other things being done, but the streets themselves, the trees and the traffic and other improvements aren't funded and this will provide funding to complete those. and then with cal train and bart and regional connection, we have a responsibility to provide a local match to the cal tran program and the provide some additional funds to bart to address some of the over
7:05am
crowding and capacity. so this is a collapsed version, if you will of the current recommendations that are not final and we're addressing it among stake holders. 3030 shows the $3 billion that will be available. if the projected taxes and go bonds are approved by the voters, that will bring us to 70 percent of funding on that need. and we've divided those into core system and investments and enhancement, and expansions. and the vast majority is in core and enhance. so the revenue, what the task force wanted to do is
7:06am
to lack at all revenue options that we know of or potentially available and we have identified three basic, large potential revenue sources. two is two $500 go revenue and that can be used to improve or enhance property, so it doesn't include rolling stock so the big program to replace the vehicles and to increase the number of vehicles would have to come from either the vehicle license fee or the sale's tax increase. the second is vehicle license fee as you recall back in 2004, the state reduced the vehicle license fee from the current at the time 2 percent to point 65. in the
7:07am
recent past, the state passed local governments with approval of the voters to reinstate up to the full 2 percent of the vehicle license fee and that's the recommendation. and then the last is increasing sale's tax by another half percent and so taken together the 15 year totals in today's dollars are particular $3 billion. we know this is a huge list that the voters are being asked to shoulder this investment, but we do believe that the investment into transportation that has never been done before are warranted and are timely. and then the third recommendation is for us to
7:08am
continue to seek additional funding. we do know and as identified in the ta's transportation plan that there are other regional state and federal venues. there are cap and trade revenues, there's potential for toll increases that we can share in san francisco and we continue to recommend that our city leaders work together in order to further those potential revenue sources. >> we have a question from commissioner breed. >> yes, i wanted to know if there were any -- did you explore any increases in developer fees for the transportation component? >> yes, we have taken a look at developer fees. many fees,
7:09am
impact development fees are restricted to the area and only can be used for new services that are required due to the new development and cannot be used to fund existing short falls in funding. >> so i think what i'm getting at is for example when a new development happens, it doesn't just impact that specific area. i mean, those folks are probably catching it and the other buses can get to where ever their destinations are and is there any possibility of maybe -- i'm not looking at this as a short fall, but more importantly an enhancement. so i'm looking to see if there was any exploration around potentially not only increasing but maybe changing the use of these transportation funds, so for example with the former
7:10am
redevelopment commission, we were able to use affordable housing dollars city wide because we developed affordable housing where we needed to develop it. when we made -- he -- when we looked at support, we enhanced the mini bus because we know that by alleviating the traffic onto the car -- alleviating the car traffic, it would alleviate the traffic congestion in the specific area. so with the possibility of looking at changing the structure of the development fees to accommodate or support an overall picture of support for transportation throughout san francisco would make sense and is something we
7:11am
should take into consideration as a city. >> i agree with you, director breed. there hasn't been yet agreed on what the changes should be. because this requires a lot of additional studies, we would not have really significant control over it and the end product and the task force understands this is a separate track that cannots to up and flow and we are not saying that it should not continue, but at this point we were looking at revenue sources that could be counted on in the voters approved it and therefore that's why those are being recommended and say the revamping of transit impact fees aren't on the list.
7:12am
>> okay. was there any polls done to determine whether or not the public would support these potential options or we're not at that point yet? >> i know that there are plans to do polling, and that will certainly impact, i think, the direction that the city will take. the task force has not been involved in any kind of a polling exercise. we're looking at what potential revenues are most likely to be able to have good transportation and can -- if approved by the voters can bring the money in on a regular basis. the general obligation bonds of $500,000,000 ten years apart based on the controller's office estimates wouldn't increase the property tax rate
7:13am
because our assessed evaluation is growing at a healthy rate and then we're retiring bonds and what the recommendation is to the task force is the go bonds that's recommended be built thoo the city's capital plan and reoccur on an x number of years so we continue to invest. i've been in the city for 30 years and it has never been one, so it's past time. we seen some of these revenues as easier to implement and bringing in money that will make a dent in what we're trying to accomplish. >> commissioner campos. >> thank you mr. chair. thank you mrs. mudo. a quick question. how many revenue options were considered by the
7:14am
task force? >> maybe about 20. >> can you talk about the process that you follow to get to three. i have a roster of 55 people on the task force, was there a vote, or majority vote, or did it have to be unanimous. what was the process forgetting to three? >> again, there was not a vote, and we had a couple of meetings that was dedicated to revenue. event c was something we talked about, doing the transit impact fee. there are a number of other potential revenue sources that the transportation authority staff have included in their plan including bridge tolls and cap and trade revenue and other kinds of fees, management congestion fees,
7:15am
hotel tax, residential parking, other kinds of revenues that are within the domain of the mta. we did not choose those because those are needed to address a lot of their operating deficiencies. there is not a science to this. the recommendation of identifying those three was presented to the task force. we heard from a number of people about the concern about both the vehicle license fee impacting automobile owners that vote and are apart of the city. the state was a success when they reduced that fee. there has been some polling in the last few years when the city was considering urging the state to allow us to put the vehicle license fee on the ballot, and
7:16am
it seemed to poll well at the time. a lot of the concerns about the half cent sale's tax being regresive, -- regressive, we know it comes from businesses and comes from visitors and so that seems to be an efficient way of getting more money spread across a number of entities that are not necessarily our resident. so for all of those reasons, the three are being recommended by one of our recommendations is for the city to continue to explore other avenues because the recommendations here only meet half the need that was identified. >> because i'm still not clear
7:17am
on the process, was it a staff recommendation where the three items introduce staff recommendation and by staff who is that? >> yes. >> mayor's office, controllers office, mta, planning, capital planning, and certainly in the conversations that occurred within the task force considering the individuals comments and so forth. >> but there was no vote by a task force. >> no. over the next couple of meetings of the task force, we'll determine whether there's a distinction or minority opinion yet. we haven't gotten there. we're in the process of talking to various stake holder s and so on. i have on the screen of the priorities that everyone agreed to that's important but there's not
7:18am
enough money. >> one other -- commissioner mar. >> i wanted to appreciate the presentation and all the hard work that went into it. i'm supportive of the vast majority of everything, but it strikes me that the transportation authority that has been planning for decades for the met needs and lots of the process should be centrally involved in addition to the mta as you mentioned and the mayor's transportation staff, but i did want to say that what strikes me is a downtown makeup and not enough to the neighborhoods. if we followed what commissioner breed had suggest today have a better recommendation of folks on the task force, we might see a different mix. i did want to say that we passed in november 2011 repaving and street safety bond with $48 million, but i'm
7:19am
seeing an increase in the amounts that are going towards the street repaving and wondering why so much is focused on that. i know core is critical, but i think our neighborhoods and attention to the rapid network that you reference that will not only serve districts one, two, five, but it also will expand in the future to many other under served neighborhoods as well, but i guess my concern is the make of the committee and how well you're coordinating with the transportation committee especially given our work with the plan with the ta. i appreciate the improvements of the services, but it seems that it's focused on downtown and not enough on the neighborhoods from what i can see from this, but i hope there's a good
7:20am
dialogue and meshing of our transportation plan with the ta on what the task force is doing. i know the transportation authority has been working for it for decades looking for the broader needs of the city as well. >> a lot of downtown businesses have a stake in that and there's a lot too. we want to make sure people get to where the jobs are, but what we have in terms of measures before us, a general obligation bond and a license fee and a sale's tax doesn't necessarily look like downtown businesses are obligated at a higher level to cover what many perceive to be infrastructure services that's supporting them at a greater extent. i think that's where we like to see -- a lot of us
7:21am
will like to see it move and we have time to get there. >> i agree there's time. if we can spend a second on this slide. you see the network improvement is on two places. one in the projects of future funds and one funded because the funded page really doesn't move the project as much as it requires. the bart downtown station capacity improvements is a huge number. we don't know what it is, so that is yet to be determined. and then there are a few other specific projects here that are all worthy of additional funds without the identified sources. the meeting withs the stake holders, we've had seven or eight meetings and we continue to do so. this is the feedback
7:22am
or complaints or short comings we here. the historic use for health and human services verses transportation way back, a lot of that money did get back allocated to counties for health and service programs based on case load. when the vehicle license fee was reduced, that reduction was replaced with other statement money, and the same allocation formula was used to continue to fund the health and human services, but as you know from the budget processes sitting as a board of suppose adviser, health and services in the sector is a need to fund every year. it comes up to this board and that's another need. that's a separate transportation we have heard. how to provide resources for numerous operations. there's our five year financial plan
7:23am
shows that mta will continue to have deficits in the next five years and we need to close that gap. and hopefully some of the infra structure improvements will allow the mta to find some efficiencies that have less use of overtime and less use of -- we'll allocate that funding source to improve their staffing as required. funding accessible infrastructure integration among projects, so the accessible issue is loud and clear. again, investment in the core system will help all of the riders particularly those that are furthest away from the downtown in terms of reliability and reducing the time it takes to move from one point to another within san
7:24am
francisco. neighborhood equity, those kinds of issues have been raised and we are recommending buckets of money be spent on certain types of improvements, not in specific neighborhoods or specific routes or lines and that will need to come later and the task force will not be apart of those decisions but it will be the mta and public works and the mayor and the board of supervisors, obviously that will appropriate those dollars if we're lucky enough to have the voters approve them. sharing the burden among stakeholders is the comments you made here today has been voiced over the last number of weeks and how to address the delayed projects such as the
7:25am
bart improvements that are needed and perhaps exceeding the ada in all instances rather than meeting it. there's more needs. where we're going from here is continuing to work with advocates and stakeholders and to present the plan to the transportation task force in another couple of months. submit the recommendations, if approved, once approved to the task board, to the mayor, the ta board as you sit today. various departments -- as they approve the capital plan, there was an amendment done that they were increasing improvements and that will be inserted into the capital plan, so i do expect you'll see an amended capital plan to include these
7:26am
in the future. the task force will continue to communicate the goals and the recommendations to interested parties and i think this last one is important to continue to revise the estimates and cost and the revenues. when you take a look at the costs in today's dollars, the escalation for transportation is higher than the cpi. 5 percent as opposed to 3 percent, so that will recyte a gap in the future, so this needs -- so that will create a gap in the future, so this needs to be revisited every couple of years, but the mayor and the board get what you pay for. that concludes -- this is a work in process. we appreciate your comments, changes, the percentages of how much money
7:27am
goes to what bucket is an area that can change certainly. the task force are appointed and you're elected and responsible with the mayor so i do believe that we on apart of staff will follow your direction and your action relative to this topic. >> thank you. thank you very much for your presentation. and i know you came at very short notice as well, and i think there are a lot of comments about maybe the approach but all of us feel strongly that there has been a great deal of work that has been done work and there's been a great ship that has taken this and the leadership is going to expand a bit with our greater participation. we'll probably ask the transportation staff to help us to take a look at this as well and so we're
7:28am
into the next phase of this. we really need to figure out how to built greater consensus and all of us are in agreement that we need to really work toward building our system for the future and also make sure there's operation dollars for it. we're eager to work with you. >> if i might just thank the transportation authority, director, and the staff. we have been working together. where there are differences we're trying to address them and come to some common recommendations. i hope that when this process is over, we can stand here before you and say we are in total agreement of what should be funded and in what priority and again this has always been our intent. we appreciate and take advantage of all of the talent that exist
7:29am
in the organization. >> all of us are aware of the trade-offs that we're going to face. we're connected to groups around the city and in our neighborhoods and around san francisco that we want to make sure feel included and have a say so in what happens. i appreciate your presentation and moving forward. a few of my colleagues want to share comments. commissioner cohen. >> thank you for coming and making a presentation and enlightening us about what's happening. i want to associate myself with the comments of previous board commissioners about a little bit of a concern about the representation of this. i know you yourself didn't hand pick people, but based on the priorities, i think it was in recommendation three and what projects are getting selected, one thing that i'm concerned about that's not on here is a strategy -- we're doing all this work with pier 70, how are we going to
7:30am
increase transportation into pier 70 and what is that going to lack like when we have $160 million in allocated transportation funds, but the need is it some where between 290 and $350 million and that's just pier 70 and the infrastructure improvement. i see geneva shipyard base, but that can use love. i don't know -- i've heard hearing about it, and we've talked about it but the t-line is a priority. as we build out on the density increase and point as well as in flats rock. that should be number one if not second to the cal trans downtown extension and that's not on here and i guess because there's no one advocating for these types of projects

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)